CP4500 has a RAW mode!

Nikon Editor is getting installed along with Nikon Viewer. I clicked on the .nef file and it opened in Nikon Editor.

Also try View->
Show Tool Palette 1 there to get to some adjustment options. Also you can launch Photoshop from it and the image will open in 16 bit format there. Nikon Capture is a separate, more powerfull and expensive software but you can download the 30 days or so trial from US Nikon site. There is also an update for it somewhere there.

Alex

dh3x
wrote:

Does Nikon Capture come with CP4500? I seem to have only Nikon
View. And what is Nikon Editor? Where can I get them?

AlexMld
wrote:
Nikon Editor is getting installed along with Nikon Viewer. I
clicked on the .nef file and it opened in Nikon Editor.
Also try View->
Show Tool Palette 1 there to get to some adjustment
options. Also you can launch Photoshop from it and the image will
open in 16 bit format there. Nikon Capture is a separate, more
powerfull and expensive software but you can download the 30 days
or so trial from US Nikon site. There is also an update for it
somewhere there.

Alex

dh3x
wrote:

Does Nikon Capture come with CP4500? I seem to have only Nikon
View. And what is Nikon Editor? Where can I get them?

AlexMld
wrote:
I don't know much about this but as far as I know it is automatic -
on remapping the camera takes a long (about 10s) shot, calculates
an average brightness of pixels and then starts searching for
pixels that have a difference with the average over a certain
threshold, then if there are too many of them it increases the
threshold and repeats etc. untill it has less than 512 of them. I
guess this should work good enough so you won't need to enter
pixels manually.

jaime
wrote:
thanks Alex, that would be great... about the deadpixel mapping, as
I understand your post, the in-camera procedure is automatic? so,
there's no way that you can tell the position of the deadpixel you
want to map?

AlexMld
wrote:
Yes there is a way to read this map and also there is a special
command that forces the camera to recreate this map. The number of
deadpixels in the table will also greatly depend on the temperature
of the matrix so the longer you wait after you turn on the camera
and before you update the map the more pixels will be considered as
dead:
http://e2500.narod.ru/ccd_defect.htm
as you can see on the picture, the number of deadpixels
1 - after turning the camera on (163)
2 - in 15 minutes (214)
3 - after keeping the camera on for a long time (291)
I will ask this guy if he can create some publically available
program to manage dead pixels.

Alex

jaime
wrote:

Alex, that's great news!, do you think there's a possibility to
create a program to map the deadpixels for the 4500?, that would be
a great utility to users that live in a country with no Nikon
support (like mine).

Great explanation Alex. Even I think I understand most of what you said.

It may be a little early for me to make that leap to change to RAW format right now. I just finished chapter 2, "Digital Color and the Photoshop Connection" part of Peter iNova's book.
But I do see how and why you are all excited.
Regards and thanks for the explanation.
Gene
--
Go to page 4 of albums

Now if we are turning the picutre into a .raw file after we've taken it in tiff or jpeg, what is the significnage of doing it iwtha computer like everyoen is saying? woul'dt the picutre still be the smae pixils and what not taken from the orginal image?

Now if we are turning the picutre into a .raw file after we've
taken it in tiff or jpeg, what is the significnage of doing it
iwtha computer like everyoen is saying? woul'dt the picutre still
be the smae pixils and what not taken from the orginal image?

The picture is stored in the camera BOTH as a compressed jpg/tiff-file AND a RAW file (with the misleading .jpg in the end).

If these Nikon cameras have the ability to shoot and store the RAW files, why did Nikon keep it a secret? This should have been a selling point for their cameras and I would think Nikon would have advertised this.

You would think they would include / mention it. But maybe the performance is too slow compared to the competition, they didn't want to steal the thunder away from the 5700.

Finally, although useful to some, I wouldn't say that it is a core requirement of the 4500 user base. Hands up the 5700 owners that often use the nef format?

Just musing.

cdharris
wrote:

If these Nikon cameras have the ability to shoot and store the RAW
files, why did Nikon keep it a secret? This should have been a
selling point for their cameras and I would think Nikon would have
advertised this.

AlexMld
wrote:
Nikon Editor is getting installed along with Nikon Viewer. I
clicked on the .nef file and it opened in Nikon Editor.
Also try View->
Show Tool Palette 1 there to get to some adjustment
options. Also you can launch Photoshop from it and the image will
open in 16 bit format there. Nikon Capture is a separate, more
powerfull and expensive software but you can download the 30 days
or so trial from US Nikon site. There is also an update for it
somewhere there.

Alex

dh3x
wrote:

Does Nikon Capture come with CP4500? I seem to have only Nikon
View. And what is Nikon Editor? Where can I get them?

The Raw program works as advertised. I downloaded Nikon Capture 3.0 and updated it to 3.5. Here is what I found....

Nikon Capture is sloooow. Even on my blazing fast machine, each change (exposure, white balance, sharpen, tone) can take 10-20 seconds each to process so you can see an update.

I loaded both the JPG Fine version and the RAW (NEF) version into photoshop side-by-side (8 bit vs. 16 bit ). The difference between JPG Fine and RAW is really hard to see, I mean even @ 300% I couldn't tell one from the other, there was just a hint of more noise in the RAW file (strange). Tonality wise you have more to play with as far as levels and curves go before posterization creeps in with the 16 bit RAW, however the tonal differences between both images were not quite visible to my eyes.

All things considered the RAW format doesn't seem to be a tool I will use often if any. I think alot of people wanted RAW (including myself), but will find as I have that the speed of saving RAW, the speed of processing and limited differences between JPG and RAW will really only please the purists more than any.

You will not see much difference between jpg and raw if you apply same curves as the camera. But once you need to edit the picture - RAW benefits will become apparent. If you need an example try to correct contrast in 8-bit picture and then go to levels to see the dropouts. Or try to increase sharpness in jpg file - all the artifacts get emphasized. Have you never got shots with wrong WB? When shooting in RAW you can forget about WB, contrast, saturation, sharpness etc - just set it to whatever you want, they don't have any influence on the RAW. Concentrate on composition and exposition, too many factors to watch over only distract you. If you are skilled enough you can go further and take much more benefits from RAW applying your own curves etc. But good skills only come with experience you won't get better shots just because they are in RAW like you want necesserally get better shots just because you are using manual exposition instead of automatic.
http://www.outbackphoto.com/handbook/rawfileprocessing.html

Alex

DocW
wrote:

The Raw program works as advertised. I downloaded Nikon Capture
3.0 and updated it to 3.5. Here is what I found....

Nikon Capture is sloooow. Even on my blazing fast machine, each
change (exposure, white balance, sharpen, tone) can take 10-20
seconds each to process so you can see an update.

I loaded both the JPG Fine version and the RAW (NEF) version into
photoshop side-by-side (8 bit vs. 16 bit ). The difference
between JPG Fine and RAW is really hard to see, I mean even @ 300%
I couldn't tell one from the other, there was just a hint of more
noise in the RAW file (strange). Tonality wise you have more to
play with as far as levels and curves go before posterization
creeps in with the 16 bit RAW, however the tonal differences
between both images were not quite visible to my eyes.

All things considered the RAW format doesn't seem to be a tool I
will use often if any. I think alot of people wanted RAW
(including myself), but will find as I have that the speed of
saving RAW, the speed of processing and limited differences between
JPG and RAW will really only please the purists more than any.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.